A first appeal does not lie against a consequential order implementing plaint rejection in revision.

The appellants challenged the First District Judge, Bilaspur’s order dated 22 April 2026 dismissing their civil suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

The dismissal followed a High Court order in Civil Revision No. 315 of 2025, which set aside the trial court’s earlier refusal to reject the plaint and directed that the plaint stood rejected as barred by law.

The appellants’ review application against the revision order was also dismissed.

They then filed this first appeal against the trial court’s consequential order.

Whether a first appeal was maintainable against the trial court’s order dismissing the suit when that order merely implemented the High Court’s earlier order in civil revision.

An order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC amounts to a decree and is ordinarily appealable under the CPC.

However, where the substantive order rejecting the plaint was made by the High Court in civil revision, and the trial court’s later order merely gives effect to that decision, the challenge must be directed against the High Court’s substantive order; an appeal against the consequential trial court order is not maintainable.

No precedent was cited.

The Court accepted that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC ordinarily permits an appeal.

But the operative rejection in this case was contained in the High Court’s civil-revision order, which expressly stated that the plaint stood rejected as barred by law.

The trial court’s order was only consequential, so the appellants’ grievance lay against the revision order, not the later trial court order.

The dismissal of the review application did not alter the character of the order under challenge.

The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.